Court Denies Preservation Order Without Proof of Destruction or Degradation of Evidence
220 F.R.D 429 (W.D.Pa. 2004)
In this case, both parties requested a preservation order for documents to be used as evidence.
Finding no definitive test outlining when to grant a preservation order, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania formulated the following set of factors to consider: (1) the level of concern for the continuing existence and integrity of the evidence; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the party requesting the preservation order in the absence of a preservation order; and (3) the ability to maintain and preserve the evidence in question. The court stated that the defendant’s motion was denied based on the fact that it could not show the likelihood that the material it sought to preserve was actually in danger of being destroyed. The court went on to say that the plaintiff’s motion was denied because it would have been better filed as a motion to compel, and did not even allege the possible destruction or degradation of the evidence which it sought to preserve.
The court discussed the application of the third prong to electronic evidence by saying that evidence stored on a floppy disk or on a hard drive may not be hard to store, but that information which is contained within the hard drive of a computer may be difficult to store because of the possibility of degradation or deletion when new information is added, and old information is deleted by the computer. The court went on to say that timing of a preservation order could be critical in those cases where preservation is difficult, and especially in cases where the person in possession of the hard drive is unaware that the information on the hard drive is evidence which needs to be preserved.
- Staff Recognized for Departing Employee Investigations - The first issue of Corporate Counsel Business Journal, CCBJ, includes an interview with our Director of Digital Forensics, Yaniv Schiff, and Solutions Architect, Curtis Collette, on the evolution of departing employee investigations. Departing Employee: When Do Investigations Become Necessary? appeared in the print publication, online edition, and on CCBJ’s In-House Tech website. For Increasing Numbers of Employers, Departing Employee Investigations[...Read More]
- Chicago Office Food Drive – The Results Are In - QDiscovery’s Chicago Office collected nearly 1,000 containers of food for the local food bank this Holiday Season! Our office competed with sister offices in Indiana and Connecticut. Alas, we came in third. Our sister offices each collected nearly 2,000 containers for their local food banks. Relatively new to the company-wide food drive, the Forensics Division[...Read More]
- QDiscovery Forensics Team Develops Award Winning App! - QDiscovery is winner of a 2017 Relativity Innovation Award. Presented at Relativity Fest, the award celebrates organizations that create apps or integrations that extend the functionality of Relativity’s eDiscovery software. Our development team created an application that makes the analysis of mobile collections much more manageable. Relativity users can now produce and review mobile device data[...Read More]
- Moving and Changing - Acquired by Connecticut-based QDiscovery in 2016, Forensicon’s capabilities multiplied overnight, both in forensics brain power and eDiscovery expertise. As part of a leading provider of end to end litigation support, moving to larger offices that are more central to the Chicago legal community was inevitable.
- QDiscovery Named One of the Top 20 Providers of Legal Services! - Leading industry publication, CIO Magazine, has named Forensicon’s parent company, QDiscovery, to it’s Top 20 Providers of Legal Services. The annual listing includes 20 companies that are at the forefront of providing legal solutions and impacting the marketplace. Read the whole article here. Featured in the publication alongside QDiscovery President, Dave Barrett, is Director of Digital Forensics, Yaniv[...Read More]